response latency as a tool to study l2 learners’ zpd, zad ...lantolf, sociocultural theory and the...

Asian-Pacific Journal of Secondand Foreign Language Education

Bakhoda and Shabani Asian-Pacific Journal of Second andForeign Language Education (2016) 1:2 DOI 10.1186/s40862-016-0009-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access

Response latency as a tool to study L2Learners’ ZPD, ZAD and ongoinginformation processing
Iman Bakhoda* and Karim Shabani
* Correspondence:[email protected] Mohaddes Nouri University,Nour, Mazandaran, Iran

©Ial

Abstract

Introduction: Under the influence of Vygotsky, dynamic assessment (DA) hasrecently crept into the realm of L2 testing to assess learners’ cognitive modificationthrough the concept of mediation and zone of proximal development (ZPD)(Ableeva, The Effects of Dynamic Assessment on L2 Listening Comprehension 2008;Lantolf, Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative 2010). Computerizeddynamic assessment (C-DA) is introduced as a technological offshoot of DA whichhas the applicability to provide a more vivid picture of learners cognitive functioning(Poehner, 2008). DA proponents proposed that the presentation of mediations is theonly option to assess and assist learners’ ZPD and cognitive functioning.

Result: In this study, response latency (RL), with the potentiality to analyze on-goinginformation processing of mind, is employed as a measurement tool in assessinglearners’ cognitive functioning via C-DA form of an L2 reading comprehension taskborrowed from Philips (Longman complete course for the TOEFL Test: preparationfor the computer and paper tests, 2001). A software was programmed based onCampione and Brown’s (Dynamic assessment: one approach and some initial data,1985; Dynamic assessment: an international approach to evaluating learningpotential, 1987). Graduated Prompt Approach, an adapted version of Guthke andBeckmann’s (Dynamic assessment: prevailing models and applications, 2000), andAljaafreh and Lantolf’s (Mod. Lang. J 78:465–483, 1994) hierarchical presentation ofmediations to record the learners’ passive RL.

Conclusion: The results reveal that learners’ with larger ZPD not only reached the answerwith implicit mediations but also reflected shorter RL in reaching the correct answer. Thelearners’ information processing also expedited through presentation of mediations.

Keywords: Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA), Zone of proximal development(ZPD), Response latency (RL)

IntroductionIn the field of psycholinguistics, which studies human’s mentality, multidimensional re-

sponsibility of cognition for both comprehension and production is not fully apparent.

As the backbone of cognition, comprehension is considered as the inseparable and es-

sential abstract operation for creating durable memories (Bransford and Johnson 1972)

which the subsequent decisions made (Trabasso and Bartolone 2003). The abstraction

in comprehension processes causes difficulty in crystallization of mind procedure of

2016 Bakhoda and Shabani. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0nternational License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction inny medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commonsicense, and indicate if changes were made.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s40862-016-0009-4&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Bakhoda and Shabani Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (2016) 1:2 of 16

processing information. To understand these higher and lower-information processing,

cognitive psychologists concentrate on the text and discourse comprehension (see

Graesser et al. 1997) because of the convenience of presenting context stimuli to reach

the rationale behind the comprehension processes. The conflicts such as modular ver-

sus interactive (e.g., Fodor 1983; Marslen-Wilson and Tyler 1987), bottom-up versus

top-down (e.g., Albrecht and Myers 1995; Graesser et al. 1994; Magliano et al. 2001;

McKoon and Ratcliff 1992; Myers and O’Brien 1998) and so on along with different

models such as Construction-Integration (CI) model (Kintsch 1988, 1998), Structure-

Building model (Gernsbacher 1997; Gernsbacher et al. 1990), the Constructionist model

(Graesser et al. 1994) etc. have been attempting to provide a more vivid picture of how

information processing occurs in the human minds.

To delve more deeply into the information processing of the mind, response la-

tency is introduced to “analyze on-going cognitive processes while responding”

(Mayerl 2013). Cognitive psychologists believe that the time spent by respondents

to answer a question indicates the loading process of mind which is essential for

reaching the answer (Draisma and Dijkstra 2004, p. 132). Response latency as a

performance measurement, which is the reflection of cognitive processing, com-

menced to be investigated by Aaker et al. (1980) and LaBarbera and MacLachlan

(1979). The time between the respondent receives the question and he/she starts

to answer is considered as the response latency (Mulligan et al. 2003) which turns

out to be manifested in a continuum of spontaneous versus thoughtful responses

(Mayerl 2013). The response latency could be recorded either actively or passively.

The former is measured based on the immediate starts and stops of the timer, managed

through computer or programs (such as CATI and CAPI), to record learners’ time spent in

answering the question after the presentation of question while the latter included both the

question presentation and the learners’ spent time to answer the question. Although they

are two types of response latency measurement, the studies by Mulligan et al. (2003) and

Mayerl and Urban (2008) demonstrated that the same result could be achieved from both

response latencies, active and passive time latency. The achieved time for the respondent

goes through statistical analysis to explore the accessibility, strength and stability of respon-

dent’s attitude (Draisma and Dijkstra 2004, p. 133). The more accessibility, strength and sta-

bility in attitudes and responses tend to quicker reaction to the question, which take fewer

time for the respondents, whereas less accessibility, strength, stability in respondent’s atti-

tudes bring them greater deal of time (Bassili and Krosnick 2000; Fazio 1990).

In this study, the respondents’ response latency is investigated based on the offered

mediations through computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) of reading comprehen-

sion. Mediation as a key concept in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (SCT) is explained

by Lantolf (2000) as follow: “the central and distinguishing concept of sociocultural the-

ory is that higher forms of human mental activity are mediated. Vygotsky argued that

just as humans do not act directly on the physical world but rely, instead, on tools and

labor activity, we also use symbolic tools, or signs, to mediate and regulate our relation-

ships with others and with ourselves” (2000, p. 80). According to the Donato and

McCormick (1994), Ableeva (2008) and Lantolf (2010) mediation in L2 context

plays the role of instructional intervention which modifies cognitive process and

learning. This cognitive modification is expected to influence the respond latency

in respondents.


Literature reviewAs the pioneer experts of response latency, Aaker et al. (1980) and LaBarbera and

MacLachlan (1979) attempted to measure the response latency in telephone interviews.

The respondents were asked about companies and their products via telephone based

on the assumption that the quicker the selection between brands, the stronger the pref-

erence would be. In a statistical quantitative analysis, MacLachlan and Siegel (1979)

ascertained that more time was spent for incorrect answers to the knowledge questions

about the companies and the products than correct answers. Their conclusion was that

up to a certain level of time the respondents’ answer was based on actual knowledge

and above that level “helpful guessing” might be used. Bassili (1993) also employed

response latency to demonstrate nuances between voting intentions and actual voting

behavior. In comparison with a verbal measure of “certainty”, response latency was con-

cluded to be a better predicator. Different types of questions are also demonstrated to

have an effect on response latency in Bassil and Fletcher (1991) investigation. They

ordered the questions according to the respondents’ response latency from very short

response latency to the long one. The simple factual questions reflected shorter latency

than complex attitudinal ones. Poor-prepared questions were also introduced as

another factor which could increase the amount of time respondent spent to answer

the questions (Bassili 1996a; Bassili and Scott 1996.

The response latency is also employed in social psychology to explore respondents’

accessibility, strength, and stability of attitudes. Bassili and Krosnick (2000) and Fazio

(1990) explicated that the high accessibility, stability, and strength in respondents’

attitude bring shorter response latency while respondents with uncertainty spent more

time to answer the questions. The increase of elaboration added more time to the

response latency. The extent of elaboration in answering process in accordance with

the response latency has been investigated to reach the mode of information processing

in mind. Therefore, various applications are introduced in this regard (e.g., Baxter and

Hinson 2001; Carlston and Skowronski 1986; Gibbons and Rammsayer 1999; Hertel

et al. 2000; Sheppard and Teasdale 2000; Urban and Mayerl 2007).

The measurement of response latency is a crucial issue because the reliability of the

gained and interpreted information depends on the meticulous record of response time.

The response latency could be recorded either by human or computer. The interviewer

might have the responsibility to press the key to run the timer immediately after the

last word of the question articulated and stop the timer at the exact moment the re-

spondent begins to respond. In fact the dexterity of the interviewer plays a crucial role

in gaining reliable data. On the other hand, computer and technology are employed

with the same goal to secure the human error. Bassil and Fletcher (1991) employed

voice key and computer to start and stop the timer on the spot. Although employing

software sensitive to extraneous sound could have detrimental impact on validity of

data like invalid measurement up to 50 % in interviewing due to unrecognizable

reaction to the meaningful human sound by the software (Bassil and Fletcher 1991;

Bassili 1996b), it is possible to use the modified version of the software to record the

passive response latency.

At the level of comprehension generally, the response latency is under the influence

of diverse variables which are still in the road of investigation. Although the studies

such as Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1971) or Gick and Holyoak (1983) indicated that


less effective problem solvers spent less time to comprehend than creative and effective

ones, they did not consider the significant variable of prior knowledge in individuals.

More background knowledge about specific issue leads to smooth comprehension due

to automatic activation of prior knowledge. At the text level comprehension, Glanzer

et al. (1984) and Graesser and Mandler (1975) found that the slower reading time is

spent by comprehenders when they stepped in the initial stage of processes such as the

first sentence of paragraph or the first sentence of an episode (Haberlandt et al. 1980).

Dynamic assessment (DA), with its root in Vygotsky (1978) sociocultural theory

(SCT), is introduced to both assist and assess learners in accordance with what is above

their current level of ability or zone of actual development(ZAD). The mediation, also

known as intervention, plays crucial role in generating new concepts with the aim of

internalization through moving individuals forward along their zone of proximal devel-

opment (ZPD) (Poehner 2008). Factually, learners travel across the distance between

the-current-level ability (ZAD) to near-future potentiality (ZPD) by the mediation.

Interactionist and interventionist are two formats of offering mediation to the learners

(Lantolf and Poehner 2004). In interactionist format, the mediations are presented

through dialogue interaction which is based upon learner’s needs while in intervention-

ist format the mediations are prefabricated and for learner’s failure one of them would

be offered. Computerized presentation of mediations via computerized dynamic assess-

ment (C-DA) context are also widespread these days (Shabani 2012; Shabani and

Bakhoda 2014). According to Kozulin (2003, p.17) the students differences before and

after the presentation of mediation is the main concern of DA. The differences are

expected to be learners’ cognitive modification and growth of ZPD.

In this study, we attempted to delve more deeply into the learners’ mind to explore

the cognitive modification of learners when they required mediation and also investigate

their response latency when faced with different prompts (textual to visual) via C-DA

in reading comprehension. The software was programmed to both present electronic

mediations and record the learners’ response latency at different levels.

Research questionsThis study seeks answer(s) for the following research questions:

1. Could response latency be employed as a measurement tool for assessing L2

learners’ ZPD?

2. What are the learners’ response latencies pattern during the presentation of

hierarchical mediations?

3. What is the effect of mediations presentation on learners’ information processing

during reading comprehension?

4. To what extent response latency could differentiate L2 learners from each other?

MethodsStudy design

To record learners’ passive response latency in reading comprehension, a software was pro-

grammed to both offer prefabricated mediations and record the time each learner spent to

tackle the correct answer. Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Campione and Brown (1985, 1987)


Graduated Prompt Approach plus an adapted version of Guthke and Beckmann (2000)

were employed among other approaches of DA (e.g., Brown and Ferrara 1985; Carlson and

Wiedl 1992; Guthke 1993; Poehner: Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among ad-

vanced L2 learners of French, Unpublished; Feuerstein 1979) to be the basic framework of

the prompt presentation in the software. Along each presentation of mediation with any

quality, the timer played its role to capture the learners’ response latency.

Participants

Voluntarily, 43 intermediate English learners between 14 and 16 years old recruited

from Ponaki English Language Institute in Gorgan, Golestan and Puyesh Language

Institute in Babol, Mazandaran province participated in this study. Both 20 male and

23 female English language learners at the intermediate level, with three-year experi-

ence of studying English in above-mentioned institutes, were involved in this study.

Materials and instruments

A software, with the use of Java script, was designed to present a reading comprehen-

sion text borrowed from Philips (2001) which was manipulated by highlighting and

visualizing the text to assist the learners when they failed to select the correct answer.

The passage was presented in “Times New Roman” font in 12 size. Ten laptops were

employed to install the program in which ten individuals could take part simultan-

eously in the procedure of the study. As the crucial part of the software, the timer was

programed to record each learner’s spent time during the responding procedure. The

text along with question and mediations are presented in Appendix A.

Procedure

Individually, each learner was asked to click on the software to read a comprehension

text and respond to a multiple choice question with ten options. When a learner

clicked on the software’s icon, the text appeared on the screen. Each learner read the

passage while the timer started simultaneously with the appearance of the text on the

screen. The timer continued to count until the learner selected an option. If the

selected option was the correct answer in the first attempt, the timer saved the time as

“the response latency without receiving any mediation” for the correct answer. If the

selected option was the incorrect option, the time was saved as “the response latency of

incorrect answer”. Meanwhile, for the incorrect attempt, the first text-based mediation

(the most implicit one) was offered to assist the learner with a new timer which was re-

sponsible to capture the learner’s response latency in the second attempt. This proced-

ure continued up to the sixth attempt. The continuation of selecting the incorrect

options made the software present more and more explicit predetermined prompts

until the last attempt (six) where the most explicit mediation (third picture) was offered

by the software. Through learner’s selection, either correct or incorrect at any level,

each learner’s response latency was recorded by the software with the consideration of

mediation’s quality and the in/correctness of the answer. The following Figure demon-

strates the framework of the software:

Figure 1 demonstrates the procedure of C-DA from beginning to the end. The works

of timer along with the quality of mediation, the degree of explicitness/implicitness and

Fig. 1 C-DA procedure


whether the mediations were textual or visual, are graphically demonstrated in Fig. 1.

The rationale behind this procedure is as follow: first, the mediations during the read-

ing comprehension text could accelerate the processing information in mind which

concomitantly brought shorter response latency to the respondents; second, learners

with larger ZPD had shorter response latency than those with smaller ones; third, the

quality of mediations, ex/implicitness, had an effect on response latency of respondents

even those with smaller ZPD.

Data analysisThe C-DA of reading comprehension task provides us with the learners’ profile. These

profiles are compromised of the number of each learner’s attempt, the time each

learner spent to reach the answer, the correctness or incorrectness of selection, and

with/without mediation the correct answer was selected. The collected data from

learners’ performance in the C-DA are encapsulated in the following table:

In Table 1, the information pertaining to the learners’ performance are firstly classi-

fied based on their attempts. Generally, the C-DA provided each learner with six at-

tempts to arrive at the correct answer in the reading comprehension task. Learners’

overall attempts are classified under the attempts’ title. The last attempt, sixth, is sepa-

rated into two attempts (sixth 1 and sixth 2) because there was no further opportunity

and mediation. The sixth 1 represents successful attempts while sixth 2 manifests un-

successful attempts. The learners’ response latency of successful attempts, based on

second, is classified under the title of “time of correct answer”. Both the least and the

longest response latency are included for the successful attempts. The general response

latency of learners, whether the correct answer was tackled or not, are sorted in

Table 1 The C-DA result (Visual = V, Manipulate = Man)

Attempts Time of correct answer General time Task features ZPD level N

First 121–197 56–318 Text 60 6

Second 40–101 40–271 Man. Text 1 50 8

Third 51–181 51–200 Man. Text 2 40 7

Fourth 83–103 81–162 Man. Text + V1 30 5

Fifth 61–67 49–133 Man. Text + V2 20 2

Sixth 1 13–88 13–129 Man. Text + V3 10 9

Sixth 2 ---- 29–129 ------ ---- 6


association with each attempt in the general time column. Task features summed up

the quality of mediations which were offered hierarchically from the most implicit

prompts to the most explicit prompts to assist the learners in reaching the correct an-

swer. Learners’ ZPD level is calculated in accordance with the assumption underlying

ZPD and mediation in Vygotsky’s SCT. Based on SCT, learners with developed ability

required no mediation while learners with developing ability required assistance to

move beyond their current level of ability (Kozulin 2003). Therefore, for each presenta-

tion of mediation 100 score was subtracted from 600 based on six opportunity for

reaching the correct answer. The last column contains both the number of learners

who answered the question successfully and those who failed.

The learners’ responses are analyzed at the following three levels: a) general response

latency of all the learners in accordance with the mediation and the in/correctness of

the attempts; b) meticulous analysis of response latency in the successful attempts; and

c) meticulous analysis of response latency in unsuccessful attempts.

Learners’ response latency vs. their ZPD levels

Involved in the C-DA procedure, the learners could reach the answer or not. The

learners’ response latency fluctuated, by running the gamut of mediation in the C-DA

for failed attempts. An overall look at the learners’ response latency in the following

Fig. 2 could explicate the differences among the learners.

This histogram represents learners’ response latency in accordance with their dur-

ation of correct responses and their ZPD level. The blue bars manifest learners’

Fig. 2 Learners’ general response latency and ZPD level


response latency of correct answer in association with the offered mediations, while or-

ange bars depict learners’ ZPD level. Learners with larger ZPD demonstrate to reach

the correct answer with shorter response latency. For example, the learners who cor-

rectly answered the question with the first attempt (with no mediation) elicited shorter

processing information than those who required mediations in arriving at the correct

answer. On the other hand, learners who were not able to tackle the correct answer,

despite the presentation of all mediations, demonstrated the longest response latency

which was the result of longer information processing. As it is apparent in Fig. 2, the

hierarchal presentation of mediation via C-DA caused fluctuation in learners’ response

latency. Learners who tackled the correct answer through the first mediation, the most

implicit one, indicated shorter latency in response for correct answer than those who

reached the correct answer with the second and third mediations. With the gradual in-

crease of mediations’ explicitness for failed learners, the learners’ response latency for

correct answer gradually increased. Successful learners with the use of fifth mediation,

the most explicit one, had the longest response latency of the correct answer while fail-

ures (out of ZPD) at the last attempt had the longest latency in responses.

Response latency of correct answer

A more vivid picture of learners’ response latency of correct answers and concomitantly

their processing time is provided in the following scatter plot Figure:

This scattered plot in Fig. 3 demonstrates more meticulously the exact latency of

each learner in arriving at the correct answer. Although Fig. 2 represented the learners’

overall response latency regard with the offered mediations, each individual’s response

latency remained unclear. In sum, Fig. 3 demonstrates individual’s response latency of

successful attempts based on the mediations they received. Each blue point is the mani-

festation of individuals’ correct answer in accordance with his/her response latency and

the mediation(s) he/she received. Same as Fig. 2, learners in level 0 are fully developed

learners who reached the answer without any mediation. According to Fig. 3, the differ-

entiation among learners is more distinguishable based upon their response latency. Al-

though learners at 0 level arrived at the correct answer without receiving any

mediation, they demonstrated different response latency. More precisely, response la-

tency accentuates differentiation among learners’ developed ability of reading compre-

hension. Learner’s growing ability also distinguished based upon their response latency.

Fig. 3 Individualistic response latency


Learners with close proximity to fully-developed ability in level 2 were also observed to

arrive at the correct answer with distinguishable response latency, though they reached

the correct answer with the same mediation. The narrow crack, as the sign of learners’

differentiation in response latency, among blue points in 0 level becomes more con-

spicuous with the increase of mediations’ explicitness in level 2–6.

Mediations and response latency

To delve more deeply into the learners’ on-going information processing, the following

graph provides us with the learners’ response latency of both un/successful attempts

with the consideration of presented mediation in each attempt.

The learners’ response latency in tackling the answer at each attempt is demonstrated

in the above histogram (Fig. 4). A specific color is devoted to the learners’ response la-

tency in each attempt. For example, blue bars demonstrate learners’ first attempt which

was without any mediation or orange bars represent learners’ second attempt which

was at the presence of first implicit mediation. The effect of mediations on learners’ on-

going cognitive information processing could be crystallized through comparing

learners’ response latency before and after the presentation of mediations. The presen-

tation of first and the most implicit mediation not only made some learners come up

with the correct answer (in second attempt) but also expedited their information pro-

cessing which resulted in shorter response latency. Besides, this acceleration of infor-

mation processing also observed in the learners’ unsuccessful attempt (orange bar at

the third attempt). Leaners’ response latency even decreased with the presentation of

second mediation (gray bar), which was more explicit than the first one. By increasing

the explicitness of mediations toward the last attempt, the learners’ response latency

decreased. Even failed learners’ response latency at the last attempt (sixth, II) declined

toward the last and wrong attempt.

ResultsThe combination of time with the mediation via C-DA provided us with an opportunity

to analyze the learners’ on-going cognitive processes. Instead of entangling in dichot-

omy of spontaneous versus thoughtful response latency, learners’ response latencies

were analyzed in accordance with the mediations they received. The obtained results

from empirical analysis of the collected data are categorized as follow: a) successful

Fig. 4 Un/successful attempts’ response latency


learners’ processing information; b) individualistic difference in response latency; c) the

general effect of mediation on learners’ response latency.

Response latency of developed and developing reading ability

The analyzed data from the learners’ performance in C-DA indicated that learners with

developed ability in reading comprehension reflects shorter response latency in reaching

the correct answer than those in embryonic stage of developing. The developed ability of

comprehending the passage brought shorter accessibility to the required multidimen-

sional information processing which resulted in shorter response latency for fully devel-

oped learners who reached the correct answer without any mediation. On the other hand,

learners’ fledgling ability in comprehending the passage, which was boosted by plethora of

assistance, indicated different response latencies in reaching the correct answer. The im-

plicit mediation bred instant access to the required information which resulted in facilita-

tion of processing the information and concomitantly shorter response latency. The

closer proximity to ZAD in reading comprehension not only required less explicit

prompts to reach the answer but also manifested shorter response latency. Although the

decrease of response latency was obvious in unsuccessful learners spent time, the presen-

tation of all mediations was fruitless for them in arriving at the correct answer. Due to

not having the task on their ZPD, the failed learners were unsuccessful in reaching the an-

swer. But their information processing expedited with the presentation of mediation.

Individualistic difference in response latency

Integration of question with assistance in the C-DA crystallized the individual differences

at the levels of ZAD, ZPD, and response latency. The conspicuous question in assessing

learners’ ZAD based on conventional non-dynamic assessment is whether learners cor-

rectly answered the question. Without receiving any mediation, six learners demonstrated

that they had the task in their ZAD by reaching the correct answer. The differentiation of

these learners in comprehending the passage was perceptible through each learner’s re-

sponse latency during coming up with the correct answer. Shorter response latency was

the result of quicker information processing in learners with stronger ZAD. Learners’ nu-

ances of developed reading comprehension potentiality manifested itself in required pro-

cessing information for answering the question which was concretely represented itself in

the latency of responses. Therefore, the difference in ZAD brought individualistic response

latency for each learner. On the other hand, learners’ proximity to the ZAD was measured

both by offering ex/implicit mediations and recording their spent time in reaching the cor-

rect answer. Although separate consideration of offered mediation could elucidate learners’

ZPD, the difference among those who reached the correct answer with the same mediation

remained mysterious. Learners’ response latency demonstrated to be distinctive both for

the group of learner and individuals. Those who reached the correct answer through an

implicit mediation reflected shorter response latency than those who arrived at the correct

answer with the help of explicit mediation. The response latency even differentiates

learners who believed to have equal potentiality due to reaching the correct answer with a

particular mediation. Each individual manifests particular response latency in arriving at

the correct answer. Even each unsuccessful learner in reaching the correct answer (six

learners) shows individualistic response latency.


Effect of mediations on learners’ response latency

The prefabricated mediations via C-DA were offered to assist learners’ developing abil-

ities for comprehending the passage. The hierarchical arrangement of mediations

brought fluctuation of response latency in learners with different ZPD enlargements.

The implicit (textual) to the explicit (visual) mediations were employed to both assist

the learners to reach the answer and reveal their ZPDs in accordance with their re-

sponse latency. By the gradual increase of mediations’ explicitness, learners’ response

latency decreased at each level. More direct assistance in explicit mediations not only

accelerated learners’ information processing but also decreased learners’ response la-

tency. Even failed learners reflected acceleration in their information processing during

hierarchical presentation of mediation, as shown in Fig. 4. Although mediations mea-

sured learners’ ZPD, the meticulous individualistic measurement occurred through the

learners’ response latency. The quicker accessibility and processing information was the

result of mediations presentation for the learners with larger ZPD. The multidimen-

sional role of mediation manifested, in Fig. 4, to be beyond the superficial consideration

of assistance in leading the learners to reach the answer.

Discussion and conclusionThis study was designed to investigate primarily the learners’ response latency in the

C-DA form of reading comprehension task. A software was responsible for capturing

the learners’ response latency alongside presenting explicit to implicit mediations

through a computerized form of DA. The software was programmed to record the

learners’ response time while they attempted to answer the reading comprehension

question in C-DA. To investigate the effect of mediation on learners’ response latency,

Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) regulatory scale was employed in the gradual presentation

of mediation for the failed attempts during the C-DA. Deep analysis of the collected

data led to the following observations:

Response latency and Vygotsky’s SCT

To elaborate on the essence of both biological and cognitive growth for development,

Vygotsky (Vygotsky 1994, p. 65) introduced the concept of internalization which is be-

lieved to form in departure from inter-psychological plane to intra-psychological plane.

Fully developed ability manifests itself at the level of intra-psychology where a child in-

dependently performs a task. The learners’ response duration along with assistance ex-

plicates how far learners are from independency and how long information processing

takes for each learner to arrive at the correct answer. Fully developed ability at the

intra-mental level brings greater accessibility, strength, and stability in processing infor-

mation for the learners. Short response latency in social psychologists’ investigation

such as Bassili and Krosnick (2000), Fazio (1990), and Johnson et al. (1999) is attributed

to the stronger, more accessible, and more stable attitude. The findings of this study, as

indicated in data analysis and results, are not only in line with the results of Bassili and

Krosnick (2000), Fazio (1990), and Johnson et al. (1999) but also show fluctuation of re-

sponse latency for learners with different levels of proximity to ZAD in reading com-

prehension task. Cognitive functioning in learners with larger ZPDs not only boosted

with more implicit mediation in reaching the answer (Antón, 2003 and Aljaafreh and


Lantolf 1994) but also attested shorter response latency. In other words, learners’ on-

going information processing is affected by transferring from developing ability (ZPD)

to developed ability (ZAD) through assistance. Mediations expedite the load of infor-

mation processing for learners with different ZPD enlargements which conspicuously

decrease their response latency.

Response latency and reading comprehension

The findings of this study also reject the claim that less effective problem solvers spent

shorter time in comprehending a text than more effective and creative ones (Csikszent-

mihalyi and Getzels 1971; Gick and Holyoak 1983). But, reading comprehension is the

result of complex operation of lower and higher-level processes (Balota, Flores d’Arcais,

& Rayner, 1990) which represents itself in learners’ response latency. Mental represen-

tation of a text is the result of processing information from the text, information that is

related to the text, and the inferences that are generated (McNamara and Magliano

2009) in which deficiency in any of them brings further loading to the information pro-

cessing and concomitantly longer response latency. The implicit to explicit presentation

of mediations bridged these parts hierarchically to assist activation of prior knowledge,

which could be related to the text, and reasonable inferences in leading the learners be-

yond their current level of comprehension. Continuous activation of prior knowledge

during the reading is boosted by mediation for further assistance which substantiated

McNamara and Magliano (2009) statement “When comprehenders have more know-

ledge about the domain, or about the world, then their understanding will be more rich

and coherent because more concepts are automatically primed” (p.303). This super-

activation by mediation also manifested itself in learners’ shorter response latency. For

learners with different reading comprehension ability, different textual (implicit) and

visual (explicit) mediations are required to assist them to fully understand the passage

and reach the correct answer. But, we cannot neglect other variables such as the strat-

egies readers used, their goal, and their metacognitive awareness which could bring fur-

ther load to the processing information in longer time or expedite it in shorter time

(McNamara, 2007).

On the implication side, mediators could use different kinds of mediations to as-

sist learners in comprehending a passage instead of letting them struggle with diffi-

cult vocabularies by their own. Both textual and visual mediations could end

learners’ ongoing struggle against words and provide them with the opportunity to

keep focus on crucial information for reading comprehension. The learners’ high

processing time at their initial attempts might relate to such peripheral emphasis

on vocabularies. Besides, response latency could clearly differentiate learners form

each other when they reach the answer with the same mediation. Consideration of

mediations’ quality and learners’ response latency could better crystallize learners’

performance when assessment is necessary.

Response latency as the manifestation of ongoing information processing could pro-

vide us with more vivid picture of comprehension by considering the role of long term

memory, working memory, working memory, word knowledge, world knowledge and

so on. Also, the effect of visual based mediation versus text based mediation on reading

comprehension and response latency could move further our understanding of mental

operation in comprehending a text.


Appendix ARead the following text and answer the question:

The rate at which the deforestation of the world is proceeding is alarming. In 1950 ap-

proximately 25 percent of the earth’s land surface had been covered with forests, and

less than twenty-five years later the amount of forest land was reduced to 20 percent.

This decrease from 25 percent to 20 percent from 1950 to 1973 represents an astound-

ing 20 million square kilometers of forests. Predictions are that an additional 20 million

square kilometers of forest land will be lost by 2020.

The majority of deforestation is occurring in tropical forests in developing countries,

fueled by the developing countries’ need for increased agricultural land and the desire

on the part of developed countries to import wood and wood products. More than 90

percent of the plywood used in the United States, for example, is imported from devel-

oping countries with tropical rain forests. By the mid-1980s, solutions to this expanding

problem were being sought, in the form of attempts to establish an international regu-

latory organization to oversee the use of tropical forests.

The author’s main purpose in this passage is to….

(A) cite statistics about an improvement on the earth’s land surface

(B) explain where deforestation is occurring

(C) blame developing countries for deforestation

(D) how deforestation occurs in the world

(E) offer solutions for deforestation

(F) inform reader about history of deforestation

(G) predict what will happen in 2020

(H) report that deforestation began in United States

(I) find the main source of deforestation

(J) make the reader aware of a worsening world problem

Mediations:

1. Read the text again

2. Read the text again and pay attention to the beginning of each paragraph.

3. Look at the first picture and read the passage again (picture 1).

4. Look at the second picture and read the passage again (picture 2).

5. Look at the third picture and read the passage again (picture 3).


Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributionsIB and KS carried out the research by the title of “Response latency as a tool to study L2 Learners’ ZPD, ZADand ongoing information processing” and participated in the sequence alignment and drafted the manuscript.Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ informationIman Bakhoda is an MA graduate of TEFL from Allameh Mohaddes Nouri University, Iran. He has published a paper inhumanizing language teaching journal and presented several papers in national and international conferences likeTellsi12, IELTI-7, and CELT-EL2015. He is interested in doing research on dynamic assessment and discourse analysis.Karim Shabani is a PhD graduate of TEFL from the University of Tehran and academic member of Allameh MohaddesNouri University. He has presented a number of papers in international conferences like ICELT2009 (UPM), TELLSI6,TELLSI7, TELLSI9, TELLSI10, TELLSI11, ILI conference, ICELET2012 (University of Tehran), etc. His areas of interest areVygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory, (dynamic) testing/assessment and simultaneous interpreting.

Received: 13 October 2015 Accepted: 23 January 2016

References
Aaker, DA, Bagozzi, RP, Carman, JM, & Maclachan, JM (1980). On using response latency to measure preference. Journal
of Marketing Research, 17, 237–244.Ableeva, R (2008). The Effects of Dynamic Assessment on L2 Listening Comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf, & M. E. Poehner

(Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages (pp. 57–86). London: Equinox.Albrecht, JE, & Myers, JL (1995). The role of context in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459–1468.Aljaafreh, A, & Lantolf, JP (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of

proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.Antón, M (2003). Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Foreign Language Learners. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the

American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.Balota, DA, Floresd’Arcais, GB & Rayner, K (Eds.) (1990). Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Bassil, JN, & Fletcher, JF (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research-a method for CATI and a new look at

non-attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331–346.Bassili, JN (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54–61.Bassili, JN (1996a). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of

attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653.Bassili, JN (1996b). The how and why of response latency measurement in telephone surveys. In N. Schwarz & S.

Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative process in surveyresearch (pp. 319–346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bassili, JN, & Krosnick, JA (2000). Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects?New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Political Psychology, 21(1), 107–132.

Bassili, JN, & Scott, BS (1996). Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research.Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 390–399.

Baxter, BW, & Hinson, RE (2001). Is smoking automatic? demands of smoking behavior on attentional resources. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 59–66.

Bransford, JD, & Johnson, MK (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehensionand recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.

Brown, AL, & Ferrara, RL (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture,communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campione, JC, & Brown, AL (1985). Dynamic assessment: one approach and some initial data. Champaign: University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Campione, JC, & Brown, AL (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamicassessment: an international approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: The Guilford Press.

Carlson, JS, & Wiedl, KH (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: the application of a specific model. Learning andIndividual Differences, 4, 153–166.

Carlston, DE, & Skowronski, JJ (1986). Trait memory and behavior memory: the effects of alternative pathways onimpression judgment response times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 5–13.

Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Getzels, JW (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: a studywith artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47–52.

Donato, R, & McCormick, DE (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation.The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453–464.

Draisma, S, & Dijkstra, W (2004). Response latency and (Para) linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In S.Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing andevaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131–147). New York: Wiley.

Fazio, RH (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S.Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Research methods in personality and social psychology,pp. 74–97). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.


Feuerstein, R (1979). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability in retarded performers: the learning potentialassessment device. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of neurology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis andpsychology. New York: Section XII.

Fodor, J (1983). The modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Gernsbacher, MA (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.Gernsbacher, MA, Varner, KR, & Faust, M (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.Gibbons, H, & Rammsayer, T (1999). Auswirkungen der vertrautheit mit einer reizdimension auf entscheidungs¬prozesse:

Der modulierende einfluss kontrollierter vs. Automatischer informationsverarbeitung. In I. Wachsmuth & B. Jung (Eds.),Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft (pp. 159–164). Bielefeld: St.Augustin.

Gick, ML, & Holyoak, KJ (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.Glanzer, M, Fischer, B, & Dorfman, D (1984). Short-term storage in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 23, 467–486.Graesser, AC, & Mandler, G (1975). Recognition memory for the meaning and surface structure of sentences. Journal for

Experimental Psychology, 104, 238–248.Graesser, AC, Singer, M, & Trabasso, T (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.

Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.Graesser, AC, Millis, KK, & Zwaan, RA (1997). Discourse comprehension. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.),

Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.Guthke, J (1993). Developments in learning potential assessment. In J. H. M. Hamers & K. Sijtsma (Eds.), Learning

potential assessment: theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Guthke, J, & Beckmann, JF (2000). The learning test concept and its applications in practice. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott

(Eds.), Dynamic assessment: prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Haberlandt, K, Berian, C, & Sandson, J (1980). The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 19, 635–650.Hertel, G, Neuhof, J, Theuer, T, & Kerr, NL (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in small groups: does positive mood

simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 441–472.Johnson, M, Shively, WP, & Stein, RM (1999). Contextual Data and the Study of Elections and Voting Behavior:

Connection Individuals to the Environment. Paper presented on the Workshop in Political Theory and PolicyAnalysis, Indiana University.

Kintsch, W (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction–integration model. PsychologicalReview, 95, 163–182.

Kintsch, W (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kozulin, A (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.),

Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.LaBarbera, PA, & MacLachlan, J (1979). Time-compressed speech in radio advertising. Journal of Marketing, 43(1), 30–36.Lantolf, JP (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lantolf, JP (2010). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied

linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lantolf, JP, & Poehner, ME (2004). Dynamic assessment: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics,

1, 49–74.MacLachlan, J, & Siegel, MH (1979). Reducing the costs of TV commercials by use of time compression. Journal of

Marketing Research, 17(1), 52–57.Magliano, JP, Miller, J, & Zwaan, RA (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

15, 533–545.Marslen-Wilson, W, & Tyler, L (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and

natural-language understanding (pp. 37–62). Cambridge: MIT Press.Mayerl, J (2013). Response Latency Measurement in Surveys. Detecting Strong Attitudes and Response Effects. Survey

Methods: Insights from the Field. http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063.Mayerl, J, & Urban, D (2008). Antwortreaktionszeiten in survey-analysen: messung, auswertung und anwendungen.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.McKoon, G, & Ratcliff, R (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.McNamara, DS. (Ed.). (2007). Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theory, Interventions, and Technologies. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.McNamara, DS, & Magliano, JP (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The

psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 284–297). New York: Elsevier.Mulligan, K, Grant, JT, Mockabee, ST, & Monson, JQ (2003). Response latency methodology for survey research:

measurement and modeling strategies. Political Analysis, 11(3), 289–301.Myers, JL, & O’Brien, EJ (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.Philips, D (2001). Longman complete course for the TOEFL test: preparation for the computer and paper tests. London:

Longman.Poehner, ME (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting Second Language

Development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.Shabani, K (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 Learners’ reading comprehension processes: a vygotskian pperspective.

Proccedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321–328.Shabani, K, Bakhoda, I (2014). Mediated Functioning and Processing Time as a Measure of L2 Learners’ ZPD

Performance. Humanizing Language Teaching. 16(3). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/mart03.htm.Sheppard, LC, & Teasdale, JD (2000). Dysfunctional thinking in major depressive disorder: a deficit in metacognitive

monitoring? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 768–776.Trabasso, T, & Bartolone, J (2003). Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 904–923.

http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063

http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/mart03.htm


Urban, D, & Mayerl, J (2007). Antwortlatenzzeiten in der survey-basierten Verhaltensforschung. Kölner Zeitschrift fürSoziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(4), 692–713.

Vygotsky, LS (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, LS (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R Van der Veer & J Valsiner (Eds.), TheVygotsky reader. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from:

7 Convenient online submission

7 Rigorous peer review

7 Immediate publication on acceptance

7 Open access: articles freely available online

7 High visibility within the fi eld

7 Retaining the copyright to your article

Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

response latency as a tool to study l2 learners’ zpd, zad ...lantolf, sociocultural theory and the...

Documents